Flying ash: a lesson in ignorance

[hairyears]

I think I should revise my opinion that the authorities over-reacted with the blanket ban: I suspect that much of Europe's airspace is safe for aviation, but there are absolutely no hard numbers on where, or how high, or how much as is safe. All we've got - and all that NATS have got - are anecdotes about aircraft flying into dense clouds of ash,

Comments

[uitlander]

The Finnish air force engine tests are starting to appear in English.

Personally, I prefer to take read the results of air force tests in preference to the results presented by airlines desperate to start flying again for economic reasons.

While there is doubt I do not think planes should go back into the air.

[hairyears]

The Finnish 'Test' is just another anecdote: from what I hear, they flew through visible ash - far heavier than is considered (or hoped) to be safe for transit - and everyone's pantomiming surprise and shock at the damage.

I trust that they will be publishing continuous dust density readings from the flight... Otherwise it's just an expensive stunt.

[uitlander]

Try this then.

The economic interests of airline CEOs does little to set my mind at rest about airline safety in the current environment without independent confirmation based on a large number of tests.

[liadnan]

What the airlines themselves say and think ultimately matters rather less than what certain specialist underwriters at Lloyds think. Plus those to whom the planes are mortgaged or from whom they are leased. And they are going to be equally sceptical about the airlines' own results.

[uitlander]

As are their passengers, of which I should be one later this week. I think I would rather not travel and suffer a financial loss, I do not consider it safe.